On 2017-11-17 11:46 PM, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2017-11-16 10:32 AM, Harry Wentland wrote:
From: "Leo (Sunpeng) Li" <[email protected]>
Within atomic check, dm_update_crtcs_state is called twice. First to
remove from the dc_state, and subsequently to add to it.
In both calls, a secondary mode-change check is done using dc-level
states. We shouldn't be doing this while removing, since a new
dc_stream_state has not been created to do the necessary comparison.
Because of this, the mode_changed flag within the DRM state can be
mistakenly set to false. Doing so only when adding prevents this.
We are also guaranteed that a call to add will come after remove, or
else the atomic check fails (and a commit will not happen).
Signed-off-by: Leo (Sunpeng) Li <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Tony Cheng <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Harry Wentland <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c
index d10f8c09469b..05bc98d74a33 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c
@@ -4535,7 +4535,7 @@ static int dm_update_crtcs_state(struct dc *dc,
}
}
- if (dc_is_stream_unchanged(new_stream,
dm_old_crtc_state->stream) &&
+ if (enable && dc_is_stream_unchanged(new_stream,
dm_old_crtc_state->stream) &&
dc_is_stream_scaling_unchanged(new_stream,
dm_old_crtc_state->stream)) {
new_crtc_state->mode_changed = false;
Why just not move this logic into the if (aconnector && enable) {} close
immediately above ? Seems this call has no meaning unless new_stream is
initialized anyway.
Thanks,
Andrey
Good point, the intent is clearer that way as well.
I've submitted the change internally, it will pop up in the next promotion.
Thanks,
Leo
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
